1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 14, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a motor vehicle transfer certificate of KRW 17 million with respect to the instant vehicle on the same day, at the recommendation of the borrower, that a loan of KRW 5 million can be granted if the instant vehicle is purchased in the Plaintiff’s name. On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the transfer registration procedure under the Plaintiff’s name as to the instant vehicle.

B. At the time, when the Plaintiff fails to repay the above loan, the Plaintiff issued to the borrower a letter of waiver of the vehicle to waive the instant vehicle and documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership, such as the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression, etc.

C. Since then, the instant vehicle operated by many people without following the transfer registration procedure, and in the process, tolls, fines for negligence in violation of parking and stopping regulations, and fines for negligence in violation of motor vehicle inspection were delinquent.

As of October 14, 2014 through April 22, 2016, the automobile insurance was purchased in the name of the Plaintiff at least eight times from October 14, 2014 to April 22, 2016 on the instant vehicle. As to the last automobile insurance contract (from April 22, 2016 to April 22, 2017, insurer metts Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.), the insurance premium of KRW 769,990 was paid by credit card in the name of the Defendant on April 21, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, Gap's evidence 4, 5, 6, Eul's evidence 1 and 4, each fact inquiry reply to the insurance development institute as an incorporated association, and the Daegu Metropolitan City Seo-gu Office's purport as a whole, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant subscribed to the automobile insurance on April 21, 2016 with respect to the instant vehicle, and thus, the defendant could be presumed to have taken over the instant vehicle. Thus, the defendant asserts that the transferee of the vehicle has the obligation to take over the transfer registration procedure as the operator of the vehicle.

On the other hand, the defendant at the time of this case.